Lawmakers Resist a Rush to Vengeance

For members of Congress, wrenching grief and cries of vengeance over last week’s terrorist attack are more than gut reactions from a wrathful nation. They are powerful forces that will impel their actions for weeks to come as they make life-or-death decisions for those they represent.

The challenge, many say, is to resist the visceral urge to lash back, to counsel instead that patience is no less patriotic than acting headlong out of anger.

Often, that means going against the wishes of the very people who placed them in power.

“It’s much like a barroom fight. When everyone sees the pandemonium, they want to jump in and help,” said Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.).

But over and over Foley finds himself telling people in his West Palm Beach district: “Our minds must be clear. We can’t be reducing ourselves to the level of those who attacked us by indiscriminately destroying lives in a vengeful way.”

Therein lies the test of the moment, said James Lindsay, a Brookings Institution expert on foreign policy crises. “What great leaders do is disentangle themselves from emotion and realize it’s ultimately their responsibility to act wisely, not quickly,” he said.

At least so far, it is Congress--so often seen as the most knee-jerk of institutions--that has acted as a brake on public opinion.

Last week, lawmakers gave President Bush broad authority to combat terrorism, but denied him the wider powers he sought to preempt future attacks.

“The tension indicates Congress is not going off half-cocked in a spontaneous outburst of rage,” said Robert Dallek, a Boston University historian. “There is a certain amount of calculation here.”

Lawmakers conditioned to respond to popular opinion can find themselves in an odd position.

“I’m not sure I can say this the way my constituents have. They want to blow the you-know-what off of these people,” said Rep. C.W. “Bill” Young (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. “A friend told me, ‘Find out where they live and turn it into a parking lot.’

“But the response has to be well thought out,” he said. “It can’t be done from an emotional standpoint.”

Rep. George P. Radanovich (R-Mariposa) said his office has been getting calls from people asking, “ ‘Why are we even letting Arabs into our country?’

“I tell them, ‘We can’t start judging people by their skin color or ethnicity,’ ” he said. “And I tell them, ‘Don’t you dare let your hatred get away with you. Hang on until we know who it is and what needs to be done.’ ”

For Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who represents the lower Manhattan area where the World Trade Center once stood, his own strong feelings put him at odds with his traumatized constituents. Phone calls and e-mail from some of the most liberal voters in the country have urged him to resist going to war, by a ratio of 3 to 1.

He disagrees. “I just think they’re wrong and living in a dream world,” said Nadler, who got his political start protesting the Vietnam War. “We’ve been attacked.”

Some members of Congress have found themselves searching for a middle ground between extremes.

Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Los Angeles) said he has heard a range of opinions in his district, from “ ‘Let’s indiscriminately start killing people and taking away civil liberties,’ ” to “ ‘Please, no declaration of war.’ ”

While most Americans share a collective horror, for many decision-makers the attacks last week hit much closer to home.

Army Secretary Thomas E. White Jr. knew 15 of the victims. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) knew more than 10 people who are now among the missing.

Solicitor General Theodore Olson’s wife, Barbara, was on the flight that dived into the Pentagon. Another of the victims there was a former staffer for Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), who last week bade a tearful farewell on the Senate floor. “It comes home to you in a different way when you know somebody,” he said.

But even Shelby cautions his constituents to be patient. “This has to be measured,” he said. “It’s got to be thought out. . . . It’s going to be tough--and probably bloody.”

Reactions in Congress have splintered in all directions. Among the proposals: a permanent committee on terrorism, more money for counter-terrorism, broadened government wiretapping, bulletproof cockpit doors, armed marshals on commercial flights.

But the loudest drumbeat is for war. Some say anger is not without its place when preparing a nation for the sacrifice that war entails--so long as it is properly channeled.

“We’ve been attacked. It’s natural to be angry and it’s right to be angry,” said John Pitney, a political science teacher at Claremont McKenna College. “Anger is good for mobilizing support, rallying the troops.”

He cited Winston Churchill, who raised up a nation to defeat Adolf Hitler, but never lost his level-headed focus. In contrast, misdirected fear and rage led to the internment of Japanese Americans in World War II, a national disgrace.

“In the end, military decisions have to be made in cold blood,” Pitney said. “Decisions made in the heat of anger are likely to be mistaken.”

Not everyone is out for blind vengeance. Rep. Lois Capps (D-Santa Barbara) said her constituents have urged restraint. “It’s a pretty consistent theme of caution, of not wanting us to respond out of revenge, but out of security,” Capps said. “They hope we don’t drop a lot of bombs right away.”

Rep. Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles) has noticed a calmer tone creeping into the voices of callers just since last week. “Initially, we saw a lot of people crying and people wringing their hands and saying, ‘Oh goodness, what is befalling us?’ ” she said. “Now, people are taking the time to think things through, and then put them down on paper.”

The goal now, say many in Washington, is to let reason prevail, even as bodies continue to be pulled from the rubble in New York and at the Pentagon.

“A lot of people are concerned that we don’t overreact and kill women and children in a broad attack on Palestinians or Muslims,” said Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), who lost several business acquaintances in the World Trade Center attack. “We’re angry, and we’re hurt and we want to get even, but I think [constituents are] depending on government to be rational and more precise in our strike back.”

*

Barabak reported from Los Angeles and Fiore from Washington. Times staff writers Michael Finnegan, Sue Fox, Eric Lichtblau, Paul Richter, Louis Sahagun and Richard Simon contributed to this story.